Review & Comparison: Chanel vs Shu Uemura Eyelash Curler
[cf-shortcode plugin=”acf” field=”affiliate_link”]
I wasn’t sure whether or not I’d review the Chanel eyelash curler. Not that I’m trying to hold out on you, but it was limited edition. I snagged it in December after a lot of looking and being told by multiple Chanel counters that it had been sold out for ages, so I didn’t want to taunt you with stuff you can’t have. I recently learned from The Non-Blonde that it’s available again on Chanel’s website (again listed as limited edition), so I’m going to tell you all about it (happy dance)! If you remember my Shiseido vs Shu Uemura and Shu S curler reviews, I’ve been looking for a while for a curler that will fit both the curve and the width of my eye. Inexplicably, it’s harder than it sounds.
At first look, these seem almost identical. On further inspection… they’re still pretty similar. The Chanel curler is a sleek-looking black instead of silver-toned, but it’s the same traditional design. The finger loops are almost exactly the same size and my fingers fit easily. All of the moving parts feel nice and solid, but not too stiff.
Both curlers have a similar downward curvature – not hugely curved, but not flat either. The pads on each are black rubber with a slightly rounded top. They’re so similar that you’d have trouble convincing me they’re not actually the same pad. Neither brand sells refills, so make ’em last! I don’t have my spare Shiseido curler pads anymore (that one got passed to a home that will love it more), but since they fit the Shu curler I’d expect them to fit the Chanel also.
You can see in the photo above that the Chanel curler is a little more curved front-to-back than the Shu Uemura is.
- Here’s another somewhat gratuitous curvature so you can see the curvature and width; as you can tell, the Chanel is rounder and a little narrower.
- I like to have hard numbers, so I’ve made diagrams that show the shape of each curler. The Shu is 32mm across and 9mm deep while the Chanel curler is 30mm across and 9.5mm deep. If you notice that the numbers for the Shu are vaguely different from the Shiseido comparison, that’s because I’ve revamped my methods a tad. Instead of tracing around the very top edge of the curler, I put a slip of paper through the opening and traced that. Seems pretty logical to me, since that’s the part you’re actually using. The measurements were made with my trusty calipers.
The difference in size is small but powerful. The narrower width of the Chanel curler means it actually fits my eye. It goes right to the base of my lashes all the way across, and gives a very gradual, natural-looking curl. No needing to move the curler all around to catch one end or the other, and no 90-degree crimps. The only minor drawback to the Chanel lash curler is the bottom rail can sometimes catch my lower eyelid as I’m closing it. I have no clue how that actually happens, but it’s very easily avoided by paying a little bit of attention to what I’m doing.
There’s a pretty big price disparity on these two, and if they were the exact same shape & size I’d say there’s not a significant enough quality difference to justify the extra $14. I do like the look of the Chanel curler better, but not enough to pay almost twice as much. They’re not the same size and shape though, and the Chanel just works much better for me because it fits my eyes.
In Short: The shape of the Chanel is just about perfect, the quality is great and it looks nice. The quest is over.